Re: 2016-4
I am in support of the policy proposal as stated.
rd
On Jul 26, 2016 9:22 AM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>arin-ppml at arin.net>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>arin-ppml-request at arin.net>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>arin-ppml-owner at arin.net>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>>> Today's Topics:
>> 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> (Brian Jones)
> 2. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (narten at us.ibm.com)
> 3. Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 (ARIN)
> 4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM (ARIN)
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400
> From: Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu>
> To: John Springer <3johnl at gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new
> entrants
> Message-ID:
> <CANyqO+E+MHgCzbhD=-ofi+XT6zsvi=
>VmaDkhdaAxWpX-TCjqrQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> Support.
>> On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear PPML,
> >
> > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June.
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html> >
> > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in
> > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas.
> >
> > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but
> > expressions of support will be required to advance.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > John Springer
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
> >> Proposal to Draft Policy status:
> >>
> >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html> >>
> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
> >> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as
> stated
> >> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles
> are:
> >>
> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >> * Technically Sound
> >> * Supported by the Community
> >>
> >> The PDP can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Communications and Member Services
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >> ##########
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> Date: 21 June, 2016
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to
> >> qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they
> are
> >> categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that
> ARIN's
> >> free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that "These cases
> >> are exceptional", but that is no longer correct. End user organizations
> >> requiring less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire
> space
> >> from their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN
> >> via transfer.
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
> >>
> >> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
> >>
> >> "All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from
> >> ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN's
> >> minimum allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial
> >> allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized
> >> within 24 months for specified transfers, or three months otherwise.
> ISPs
> >> renumbering out of their previous address space will be given a
> reasonable
> >> amount of time to do so, and any blocks they are returning will not
> count
> >> against their utilization.
> >>
> >> Replace Section 4.3.2 to read:
> >>
> >> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment
> >>
> >> ARIN's minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24.
> >>
> >> End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from
> >> ARIN qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN's minimum assignment
> size.
> >>
> >> Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization rate to
> >> read:
> >>
> >> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by providing
> >> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for
> >> specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> >>
> >> Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be:
> >>
> >> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by providing
> >> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for
> >> specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise.
> >>
> >> The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within
> one
> >> year.
> >>
> >> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network
> >> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on
> utilization
> >> guidelines.
> >>
> >> Comments:
> >>
> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >>
> >> Anything else
> >>
> >> The text in 4.2.2 "for specified transfers, or three months otherwise"
> >> and the text in 4.3.3 "for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise"
> >> should be stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
>http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160721/72781c9f/attachment-0001.html> >
>> ------------------------------
>> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400
> From: narten at us.ibm.com> To: arin-ppml at arin.net> Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net> Message-ID: <201607220453.u6M4r3Md011672 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days.
>> script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 EDT 2016
>> Messages | Bytes | Who
> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> 16.67% | 1 | 26.63% | 29094 | ctacit at tacitlaw.com> 16.67% | 1 | 19.27% | 21057 | mike at iptrading.com> 16.67% | 1 | 19.21% | 20994 | bjones at vt.edu> 16.67% | 1 | 17.63% | 19259 | 3johnl at gmail.com> 16.67% | 1 | 9.55% | 10434 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> 16.67% | 1 | 7.72% | 8432 | narten at us.ibm.com> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 109270 | Total
>>>> ------------------------------
>> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:13:41 -0400
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016
> Message-ID: <57976205.9010708 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 July 2016.
>> The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will
> be posted for discussion):
>> ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>> The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to
> be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement
> and suggested changes to number resource policy text.
>> The AC is continuing to work on:
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR
> Transfers to Specified Recipients)
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated
> need for IPv4 transfers
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change timeframes for IPv4 requests to
> 24 months
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for
> justifying small IPv4 transfers
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer
> Policy
>> The PDP can be found at:
>https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>> Regards,
>> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>> ------------------------------
>> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:21:29 -0400
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from
> NRPM
> Message-ID: <579763D9.7010005 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>> On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
> Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>> ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at:
>>https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft
> Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as
> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
> principles are:
>> > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> > Technically Sound
> > Supported by the Community
>> The PDP can be found at:
>>https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>> Regards,
>> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> ##########
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>> Date: 26 July 2016
>> Problem Statement:
>> The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the
> vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix
> sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses
> the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there
> are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice,
> ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any
> and all end-sites without need for further justification. More
> restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This
> proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some
> possible confusion.
>> The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the
> community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace
> 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly
> equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent
> changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite
> to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact
> on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a
> community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not
> more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing
> policy.
>> Policy statement:
>> Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows:
>> 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments
>> While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
> organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
> tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they
> tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather
> than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section
> seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by
> allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria
>> To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to
> ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network
> under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources
>> Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated
> as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee
> structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable
> fee structure for community networks.
>> Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6
> resources and the application process and use of those resources shall
> be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8
> et. seq.
>> Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the
> policies governing those resources independent of their election to use
> this policy for IPv6 resources.
>> Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with
> the definitions of utilization contained in current policies.
>> Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative.
>> Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable.
>> Comments:
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>> Anything else
>> Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio
> has been unused for several years.
>> However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the
> Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its
> inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify
> the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate
> the HD-Ratio from the NRPM.
>> I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case,
> we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure
> the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not
> constrain board action on actual fees.
>> This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community
> networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial.
>> Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is
> preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to
> HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks.
>>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
>ARIN-PPML at arin.net>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 133, Issue 4
> *****************************************
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160726/6b7db773/attachment.html>